Appeal No. 1998-2174
Application No. 07/813,733
100 (Fig. 7) which is used to automatically refill cassette 16 under the control of an
operator. Sato is relied upon as suggesting the added feature of removing currency
from a cassette in a cash processing apparatus. (Instant claim 1 requires that the cash
processing apparatus automatically “places and withdraws an amount of cash” in the
received cash safe (emphasis added).) The examiner relies on Utsumi, as set forth on
page 5 of the Answer, for the teaching of analyzing the type of transaction requested by
the user of an ATM, to determine whether supplementation of currency can be
performed without interrupting the transaction. The examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to the artisan to modify the teachings of Kawamura and Sato in view
of the efficiencies taught by Utsumi.
The examiner thus sets forth a reasonable prima facie case for obviousness of
the subject matter of claim 1, at the least. The examiner’s findings are supported by,
inter alia, the “cash safe” 16, “cash processing apparatus” 100, and “cash handling
apparatus” 12 as disclosed by Kawamura in Figures 3 and 7, in view of Kawamura’s
written description of the devices. The examiner’s findings are also supported by Sato
and by the Utsumi reference, which teaches maintenance of currency within a cassette
residing in a cash handling apparatus (ATM) during selected transactions, such as
those transactions which do not require cash dispensing, as shown in the logic of
Figure 4.
In the Brief and Reply Brief, appellants note the deficiencies, in turn, of the prior
art applied, but fail to rebut the rejection. Nonobviousness cannot be established by
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007